Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 3      Prev   1   2   3
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,530
Reply with quote  #31 
Windemere--

It's available at Amazon.uk

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/186232199X?*Version*=1&*entries*=0

And at Barnes&Noble

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-stuarts-last-secret-peter-pininski/1006197095?ean=9781862321991

You can open an account at Amazon.uk and pay with a credit or debit card in US funds.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 355
Reply with quote  #32 
Jovan, thanks for that information. It was a few years ago that I tried to locate that book, so maybe it's more readily available now. Next time I'm in Barnes & Noble, I'll see if they have it at a reasonable price, or if they can order it.
__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 166
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Peter III was the Romanoff heir, which surely entitled him to use the Romanoff name. Historically, few monarchs have been wholly or largely of the blood of the people they ruled. Some have not even been partially so, and many have had only the remotest trace of the native blood of their realm. That did not stop them being lawful monarchs, or loved by their people, or natives in spirit even if not by blood. Queen Wilhelmina's father Willem III married a German as you say, a Princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont. And his father Willem II married a Russian Grand Duchess, ethnically German (apart from her great-great-grandfather Peter I who was Russian and her great-great-grandmother Catherine I who was, we're not sure really, but maybe Latvian). His father Willem I married a Princess of Prussia, as did his father Willem V of Orange. His father Willem IV married a British princess, ethnically German, and his father Jan Willem Friso, first of that direct line to rule in the Netherlands, married a Landgravine of Hesse-Cassell.

So why there should have been shock and horror when Queen Wilhelmina married a Mecklenburg Duke (not Grand Duke) is beyond me. I don't think there was, actually, and I believe that she had the admiration and respect of the bulk of her people through most of her long reign. While she did have periods of unpopularity I doubt this was due to either her or her husband's (very similar) ethnicity. While he was never loved this was because he never did much to merit it, and I think people realised that Queen Wilhelmina had rather more of a voice in government than she was constitutionally supposed to. Which was fine when things went well, but, justly enough, meant she got blamed when they didn't.

You don't mention Prince Bernhard, just as German, perhaps because, at least until his misdeeds were exposed, he was extremely popular. The Duke of Edinburgh is also well-liked by the British public, despite (or even a little because of) his tendency to open his mouth and put his foot straight in it. The Swedish people though don't seem especially thrilled to have a Swedish consort for their future Queen, nor were the Norwegians over-ecstatic when the then Crown Prince Harald married a Norwegian. I really don't think any sweeping case can be made for modern monarchs having to be of the same ethnicity as their subjects. Which, as I started out by saying, in the past they almost never were.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 166
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domhangairt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Peter III was the Romanoff heir, which surely entitled him to use the Romanoff name. Historically, few monarchs have been wholly or largely of the blood of the people they ruled. Some have not even been partially so, and many have had only the remotest trace of the native blood of their realm. That did not stop them being lawful monarchs, or loved by their people, or natives in spirit even if not by blood. Queen Wilhelmina's father Willem III married a German as you say, a Princess of Waldeck and Pyrmont. And his father Willem II married a Russian Grand Duchess, ethnically German (apart from her great-great-grandfather Peter I who was Russian and her great-great-grandmother Catherine I who was, we're not sure really, but maybe Latvian). His father Willem I married a Princess of Prussia, as did his father Willem V of Orange. His father Willem IV married a British princess, ethnically German, and his father Jan Willem Friso, first of that direct line to rule in the Netherlands, married a Landgravine of Hesse-Cassell.

So why there should have been shock and horror when Queen Wilhelmina married a Mecklenburg Duke (not Grand Duke) is beyond me. I don't think there was, actually, and I believe that she had the admiration and respect of the bulk of her people through most of her long reign. While she did have periods of unpopularity I doubt this was due to either her or her husband's (very similar) ethnicity. While he was never loved this was because he never did much to merit it, and I think people realised that Queen Wilhelmina had rather more of a voice in government than she was constitutionally supposed to. Which was fine when things went well, but, justly enough, meant she got blamed when they didn't.

You don't mention Prince Bernhard, just as German, perhaps because, at least until his misdeeds were exposed, he was extremely popular. The Duke of Edinburgh is also well-liked by the British public, despite (or even a little because of) his tendency to open his mouth and put his foot straight in it. The Swedish people though don't seem especially thrilled to have a Swedish consort for their future Queen, nor were the Norwegians over-ecstatic when the then Crown Prince Harald married a Norwegian. I really don't think any sweeping case can be made for modern monarchs having to be of the same ethnicity as their subjects. Which, as I started out by saying, in the past they almost never were.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 166
Reply with quote  #35 
Hi Peter. Apologies for my late reply. Have been offline for some time. Yes, you are right about the mixed blood heritage. But for most of these countries which are culturally paternal, the male line is the lineage which counts. This is the dynastic lineage. Queen Elizabeth may be the reigning monarch in Britain, but that does not make her a member of the House of Cerdic- the original royal house of England. Her occupation of the Throne is a consequence of a long series of fortuitous and often violent political decisions which included the violent or forced removal of legitimate kings including Harold II, and his successor, young King Edgar II who was the rightful king of England in 1066. Had Edgar not been forced to surrender the English Throne by the Duke of Normandy, Guillaume the Bastard- who had no right to the English crown whatsoever, England might have been a different country today- and perhaps a better country- and Queen Elizabeth would not even have been born. 

This is why nations attach so much importance to authentic male line lineage. It lends dignity and authenticity to a monarchy. The Queen's German heritage is a significant factor in her muted support north of the border. The reason why the royal families of Serbia, Montenegro, Georgia, and Albania are so popular is precisely because the senior representatives of these families represent the original historical ethnic dynastic male line of these monarchies- although King Leka II can only claim descent from the sister of Skanderbey a.k.a George Castriota. But the male line of his family has a long and intimate relationship with ethnic Albanians. On the other hand, no-one in Russia can identify with Maria Vladimirovna no matter how much she may aspire to be  Russia's mother figure. Who these monarchs marry is not as important although Leka II has been criticized because of his Australian mother and Hungarian grandmother. His present engagement to an Albanian aristocrat is a very wise move on his part. 


Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,728
Reply with quote  #36 

I don't understand your practice of quoting the post you are replying to, in full and in a separate post. In this case you have done it twice, but it's not actually the post you are replying to. Oh well.

Looking at the ten remaining European monarchies, the last time England had a sovereign who was agnatically English was in 1066. The last time Scotland had a sovereign who was agnatically Scottish was in 1286. The combined realms have never had a sovereign who was agnatically British. The last time Denmark had a sovereign who was agnatically Danish was in 1412. The last time Sweden had a sovereign who was agnatically Swedish was in 1654. Liechtenstein has never had a monarch who was agnatically from that small realm.

The last time Norway had a sovereign who was agnatically Norwegian is a highly debatable question, but I would say 1319. Luxembourg has never had a Grand Duke who was agnatically from that somewhat accidental country. Monaco has never had a sovereign who was agnatically Monégasque. The Netherlands have never had a sovereign who was agnatically Dutch. Belgium has never had a sovereign who was agnatically Belgian. The united Spain has never had a sovereign who was agnatically Spanish; the last such of any of the Spanish realms died in 1234.

Yet here all these monarchies still are. I suggest that your point on the crucial importance of the male line might also need a little rethinking. On your further points, while I agree that William I had no right to the English throne bar conquest, that was in itself seen as a right in those days. And there was precedent for it; the Dane-kings equally were nothing to do with the House of Wessex (which the Queen would struggle to be a member of, it having been extinct for nine centuries) and had no claim but victory in battle, yet were accepted, as William’s heirs came to be. Not that it seems to help her case with you, Elizabeth II has more of the native blood of these isles than any sovereign since Queen Anne. But that does not make her any more their monarch than say Queen Victoria was. The Crown descends by law and lineage, not ethnicity.

Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 166
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

I don't understand your practice of quoting the post you are replying to, in full and in a separate post. In this case you have done it twice, but it's not actually the post you are replying to. Oh well.

Looking at the ten remaining European monarchies, the last time England had a sovereign who was agnatically English was in 1066. The last time Scotland had a sovereign who was agnatically Scottish was in 1286. The combined realms have never had a sovereign who was agnatically British. The last time Denmark had a sovereign who was agnatically Danish was in 1412. The last time Sweden had a sovereign who was agnatically Swedish was in 1654. Liechtenstein has never had a monarch who was agnatically from that small realm.

The last time Norway had a sovereign who was agnatically Norwegian is a highly debatable question, but I would say 1319. Luxembourg has never had a Grand Duke who was agnatically from that somewhat accidental country. Monaco has never had a sovereign who was agnatically Monégasque. The Netherlands have never had a sovereign who was agnatically Dutch. Belgium has never had a sovereign who was agnatically Belgian. The united Spain has never had a sovereign who was agnatically Spanish; the last such of any of the Spanish realms died in 1234.

Yet here all these monarchies still are. I suggest that your point on the crucial importance of the male line might also need a little rethinking. On your further points, while I agree that William I had no right to the English throne bar conquest, that was in itself seen as a right in those days. And there was precedent for it; the Dane-kings equally were nothing to do with the House of Wessex (which the Queen would struggle to be a member of, it having been extinct for nine centuries) and had no claim but victory in battle, yet were accepted, as William’s heirs came to be. Not that it seems to help her case with you, Elizabeth II has more of the native blood of these isles than any sovereign since Queen Anne. But that does not make her any more their monarch than say Queen Victoria was. The Crown descends by law and lineage, not ethnicity.

So you would have no problem at all with a Malaysian, Chinese, or Pakistani person inheriting the English Throne so long as that person could claim descent from the previous monarch. Because that is the next step. There are thousands of people who can claim descent in the female line from the Kings and Queens of England including Barack Obama, and the Countess of Mertola. And the Countess of Mertola is more senior in the the Protestant line of descent from Elizabeth of Bohemia, daughter of King James I than the present Queen. So what's so special about the Queen's claim?? It's very significant to me  that those deposed monarchies which have retained their original ethnic dynasties are riding a wave of popularity, while those which were imported, or of foreign heritage  are continually struggling to find public support. No monarchy can survive without the support of it's tribe or nation. Last opinion poll in Scotland (2014) showed that just 54% of Scots would vote to keep the monarchy after independence as opposed to 75% who would vote to restore the Georgian royal house. During the referendum campaign last year, The Queen told David Cameron: :Are you going to make me the last Queen of Scotland??" I rest my case. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,728
Reply with quote  #38 
No, I would have no problem with that at all. Such a person would of course have to be a communicant member of the Church of England, as the law requires for the monarch. Adherents of other faiths, Roman Catholics aside, are not barred from the line of succession but cannot actually accede without first converting. The Countess of Mertola's descent is of dubious legitimacy, but in any case the Act of Settlement and Acts of Union limit the succession to the heirs of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. The Queen is her heiress of line, the Countess is not, being merely and very questionably the heiress of the Electress's brother.

You can have your potential monarchies; I cited ten existing, real ones. I would be very happy of course if any of those you list were to be added to their number; for preference, all. Finally, a point I did not address when replying to your previous post. Most of its monarchs came from the House of Wessex, but England before the Conquest did not have a settled hereditary order of succession (actually, it also didn't for a long time after, but that's another topic). It is therefore meaningless to speak of a hereditary claim from that anyway no longer existent House. However, every single monarch of England and later Britain after William I himself has had a strain of the royal blood of Wessex, William II, Henry I and Stephen from Alfred the Great and from Henry II onward from his great-great-great-grandson Edmund (II) Ironside,  so a genealogical link at least with the earlier kingdom persists.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,728
Reply with quote  #39 

To correct myself, the Countess of Mertola is not heiress of the Electress Sophia’s brother Karl I Ludwig, Elector Palatine. She is only the senior descendant of his bigamous second marriage. In 1714 when Queen Anne died the Countess’s foremother Frederica Schomberg, a granddaughter through her own mother of that marriage, was the most senior Protestant descendant of James I and VI, the illegitimate children of Charles II and James II and VII and their further descent aside. For obvious reasons she though was no more considered for the succession than they were, it going instead to her mother’s first (and Queen Anne’s second) cousin Georg I Ludwig, Elector of Hanover, who thus became George I of Great Britain, France and Ireland.

Even if no account is taken of the invalidity of that long-ago marriage, the Countess today cannot be said to be even Protestant heiress of the Elector Karl I Ludwig, since there are Protestant descendants of his very unhappy but unquestionably valid first marriage, to Landgravine Charlotte of Hesse-Cassel, the children of the Prince of Prussia for example. For that matter, they are also descended in legitimate line from Charles I, which would trump any and all descents from Karl I Ludwig and his siblings were it not for the limitation of the succession to the heirs of his sister Sophia. The children and grandchildren of the Margrave of Baden are also Protestants possessing both these descents, and I am sure there are others I have not thought of.

For what it is worth, the heir-general today of Karl I Ludwig is Prince Lorenz of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este, Prince of Hungary and Bohemia, Duke of Modena (I just love that splendid roll of titles, and couldn’t resist giving it in full). He is so through his great-grandmother Princess Hélène of Orléans, his maternal grandfather’s mother. Which raises some intriguing possibilities, as while she eventually married the 2nd Duke of Aosta Princess Hélène had previously been informally affianced to Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale and second in line after his father the future Edward VII to the British throne.

The couple were in love, and both the Duke’s grandmother Queen Victoria and Princess Hélène’s mother were sympathetic to the match. Her Catholicism would of course have disinherited her new husband the instant the knot was tied, but she was willing to convert. Her father however valued his daughter’s immortal soul over her prospects of becoming Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India, and refused permission. He did allow Hélène to approach Pope Leo XIII; his response was what you would expect, and that was that.

In the event Albert Victor never became King, dying unmarried at the early age of 28, two years after these events. He might have lived to be older and eventually succeed his father had he been wed to Hélène, simply because his schedule would have been different and he might not have been in the place where he caught the fatal influenza. In any case he would most probably have had a child by then, which would have become heir or heiress in its turn, and the British sovereign today would be heir-general of the whole posterity of Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia, daughter of James I and VI and mother of the siblings Karl I Ludwig and the Electress Sophia. He or she would also be descended through Hélène in legitimate line from Elizabeth’s brother Charles I.

The present Queen can claim neither of these things, but that does not make her one whit less the lawful sovereign. Nor would her alternative-reality counterpart be one whit more so. Which is the point that this little genealogical fantasy is intended to make; it is law as well as lineage that governs the succession to the Crown.

Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 355
Reply with quote  #40 
Thanks for all the informative posts above.

I think that the young German princes (children of Prince of Prussia Georg Friedrich and his wife Sophie of Isenburg) can be traced back to Karl I Ludwig's irregular union with his maitresse Marie Luise, whom he awarded the unique title of Raugrafin, as well as to his first marriage to Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel. Definitely through Georg Friedrich himself, and possibly through his wife Sophie von Isenburg, as well.

Karl had unilaterally declared himself divorced from his first wife, though he took no legal action to validate his declaration, therefore rendering the thirteen children with whom Mistress Marie Luise presented him of dubious legitimacy, although they were presumably good Protestants. Only one of them, Karoline Elisabeth of the Palatinate, has descendants traceable on Genealogics.org.

Still, in the fullness of time,Elector Palatine Karl and Mistress Marie Luise may yet become ancestors of a reigning British, if not German, monarch. Here's a lineage from them to Prince William of Cambridge:

Karl I Ludwig & Marie Luise, Raugrafin of the Palatinate, parents of:
Karoline of the Palatinate, mother of:
Frederica von Schonburg (mentioned above), mother of:
Lady Louisa d'Arcy, mother of:
Lady Louisa Kerr, mother of:
Charles Lennox, 4th Duke of Richmond and Lennox, father of:
Charles Gordon-Lennox, 5th Duke of Richmond and Lennox, father of:
Lady Cecilia Gordon-Lennox, mother of:
Lady  Rosalind Bingham, mother of:
Lady Cynthia Hamilton, mother of:
Edward, 8th Earl Spencer, father of:
Lady Diana (Spencer), mother of:
Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.



__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,728
Reply with quote  #41 

Yes, that’s quite true, and I hadn’t been aware of it. Here is one of the four lines that I can see to the Prince of Prussia from Raugräfin Karoline Elisabeth whom you mention. I did not find any descent to the Prince’s bride, but here is a line to the Duke of Brunswick, the only one I could see, taken through to Princess Alexandra of Hanover, his daughter by his marriage to Princess Caroline of Monaco. The wife of Donatus, Landgrave of Hesse, is another descendant. For Jovan’s benefit, here is a line to An t-Ailpeanach, the 24th Chief of Clan Gregor, whom I believe he has said is his own Chief.

The line to the Duke of Cambridge is linked in the 1660 thread in the Royal Genealogy section, post #13; I remark therein that when he eventually accedes the Duke will be the first ever Protestant monarch descended from the 17th-century Protestant Elector Palatine, Karl I Ludwig. Much as I wish that the Prince of Prussia were German Emperor and King of Prussia and the Duke of Brunswick at least that in sovereign truth, if not King of Hanover, they are not, and despite these previously unknown to me descents that observation still appears to be correct.

In a roundabout way, that brings me to another point in my lonely battle with Domhangairt as he argues for the Queen’s replacement by, well, almost anyone it would appear (in direct violation of forum rules, I might add). The vast majority of the sovereigns of Germany and the German realms throughout history have been both ethnically and agnatically German. By his scheme of things, these monarchies and sub-monarchies ought all to be surviving and flourishing (by mine too, but for different reasons). Sadly, they aren’t. Just how realistic are Dom’s arguments? They don’t seem to work out very well in the real world, is all I can say.

Finally, to wrap up the tale of the descendants of the Elector Karl I Ludwig’s contentious second marriage, although as you say no fewer than 13 children were born of it I believe it is the case that Raugräfin Karoline Elisabeth was the only one of these with any issue at all, and that Genealogics fails to show descent from the others not because of a gap in the database, which does happen, but because there was none.

Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 355
Reply with quote  #42 
Some Rumanian newspapers are evidently reporting that a young Rumanian woman, Nicoleta Cirjan, who took part in a charity bike-ride about a year ago with Nicholas (Medforth-Mills) deRoumanie, gave birth to a daughter this past February, and that she's implied that Nicholas is her child's father. She has named her daughter Iris. Nicholas himself has occasionally given some public statements to the effect that he continues to be unaware of the reason why he was removed from the succession, and he hasn't publicly addressed the issue of his possible paternity of the child, neither confirming or denying it.

All of this seems somewhat reminiscent of the rumors concerning his great grandfather Carol's amours in Rumania many years ago. They say that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. At any rate, if there's any truth to the newspaper reports, it might be that Nicholas, like his great grandfather before him, is leaving behind him at least some sort of legacy in Rumania. Be that as it may, it will be interesting to see how things turn out. 



__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 831
Reply with quote  #43 
If this is true it may indeed shed some light on the decision of King Michael. Not that it would make it a better decision - royalty has had illegitimate children for centuries, and it shouldn't be a reason for not being accede to the throne because it doesn't matter for one's capacity to be a good head of state. But perhaps King Michael's own family history strengthened his feelings over this episode. All of it is still such a shame. 
samyorks

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #44 
September 24th, 2016

http://http://www.romaniajournal.ro/woman-sends-reply-on-paternity-test-to-prince-nicolae/

It seems very unfair that she doesnt just get on and have the paternity clarified so he can get on with his life, one way or another.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.